With that having been established, the question becomes whether “count to Mississippi 500 before you hit the alarm” satisfies the duty of competence. I don’t think so. Here’s why.

First, 500 is way too high. If I know anything from movies, it’s that tellers hit the alarm right befote the robber is out the door…….but only if they haven’t already sneaky hit it while pretending not to know how to open the drawer!

The robber had 5 Mississippi max.

Next, the critical fact here is how the lawyer phrased the note: he instructed the teller to say the number, then “Mississippi.” Wrong construct.

You see, everyone knows that when rushing the quarterback in touch football, it takes far longer to count “Mississippi, number” than it does “number, Mississippi.” That’s how I always sacked my brother . . . “1 miss, 2 mis, 3 mi” and the rush was on.

Meanwhile, when I had the ball, I made him count “Mississippi 1, Mississippi 2, Mississippi 3.” For whatever reason, in that construct, would-be tacklers tend to enunciate “Mississippi” longer than in the reverse construct, thereby giving the QB more time to pick them apart.

In conclusion, the lawyer failed to ensure maximum getaway time by failing to instruct the clerk to use the slowest Mississippi construct possible. Ergo, violation of the duty of competence.

And, yes. I suspect this lawyer will find his way into Was That Wrong.